Woolwich board delays decision on 72‑unit Park Grove affordable-housing proposal, requests new traffic study

The Woolwich Township Joint Land Use Board on Aug. 7 heard detailed testimony and public opposition about Park Grove Development LLC’s preliminary subdivision and site plan for a 72‑unit garden‑style affordable housing complex and agreed to delay a decision pending a revised traffic study.

Applicant attorney Kevin Sheehan introduced the Park Grove proposal, which calls for three garden buildings totaling 72 units (12 one‑bedroom, 42 two‑bedroom and 18 three‑bedroom units), a roughly 2,400‑square‑foot clubhouse with management offices and on‑site amenities, and on‑site stormwater and landscaping. Sheehan said the project is intended to address the township’s Fair Share housing obligations and noted funding and scheduling constraints tied to the development timeline.

Board members and municipal professionals probed site, utilities and circulation details. Civil testimony noted wetlands and a shallow gas line across the property that will require coordination and permits; engineers said portions of the site must be raised and that infiltration basins would be designed to meet DEP standards. Planner Ashton Jones said applicants had submitted responses to an 8/5/25 review letter and planned plan revisions to eliminate variances where possible.

Traffic and school‑period congestion became the central issue. The applicant’s traffic engineer presented a trip‑generation analysis indicating roughly 45 trips during the morning peak and about 52 trips during the evening peak and concluded local intersections’ levels of service would be similar to current conditions. But municipal traffic reviewer Josh Seeherman and opponents challenged the underlying data: counts were done June 24, after the school year ended, and the report did not include nearby warehouses and other new housing that residents and the board said could materially change traffic patterns.

Opposition attorney William Horner and traffic expert Dave Shropshire presented crash data and video evidence and urged the board to require a study performed when schools are in session. Horner told the board the additional data were necessary for accurate decisionmaking, and Shropshire testified that an updated, broader count timed for September would give a more reliable foundation for assessing impacts during school pick‑up and drop‑off periods.

Sheehan told the board the applicant would produce another traffic report and said a revised analysis was already planned; the board’s chair and professionals urged the applicant to schedule counts when the schools were in session and to include nearby developments and school bus activity. "We will do another traffic report this Friday, 8/8, and submit a revised traffic report next week," Sheehan said.

After public comment and technical discussion, the board accepted a motion to adjourn the Park Grove application to a later date to allow the applicant to provide updated traffic analyses and respond to outstanding professional comments. The board did not vote on the merits of the subdivision or site plan at the meeting.

Next steps: the applicant will submit revised traffic materials and plan revisions; the board indicated it prefers counts taken during the school year (September) and additional coordination with county officials for any changes to Kings Highway access. The board noted the application may require re‑notice if continued into September.